Opposition material - City Clerk - City of Jonesboro

Effects ofProhibition 3
This study takes a two-stage approach to examine the influence ofcountylevel
policies concerning the sale of alcohol in Arkansas. First, we replicate
and extend a study used to support the prohibition ofthe sale ofalcohol based
on arrest rates. Second, we replicate studies carried out in Kentucky and
Tennessee to consider whether alcohol-prohibition policies have an effect on
alcohol and drug related automobile crashes, an outcome measure that better
reflects behavior. In both sections we use analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
consider the effect of policy alone and multivariate ordinary least squares
(OLS) regression analysis to test a more fully specified model before drawing
conclusions. We conclude by discussing policy options in light ofthe findings.
Alcohol Policy in Arkansas
In a study of great policy salience for Arkansans, Grossman (1997)
examines adult and adolescent drug and alcohol arrests in Arkansas by
comparing 43 dry with 32 wet counties in the state. He reports that between
1992 and 1996 an average of 12.5 arrests for drunk driving per 1,000 people
in wet counties took place compared to the rate of8.7 arrests per 1,000 in dry
counties. Grossman also finds an average of 32 arrests per 1,000 for adult
alcohol and drug related crimes in wet counties, compared to the rate of 21
arrests per 1,000 in dry counties. He concludes that alcohol acts as a
"gateway" substance, leading to the use ofother drugs, since there were 2.5
drug-related arrests per 1,000 juveniles in wet counties as compared to 1.7
arrests per I,000 in dry counties. Overall, Grossman concludes that the ready
availability ofalcohol is a key factor in alcohol- and drug-related crimes.
The importance ofGrossman's research in determining county-level public
policy in the state of Arkansas is indisputable. Specifically, proponents of
alcohol control policy have made frequent and prominent use ofhis findings,
pointing to his analysis to buttress morality-based arguments. For instance,
prohibitionists state that having a wet county could lead to "a decline in morality,
increased drunk driving and a decrease in family values" (Hinkle 1999) and
could lead to higher rates ofalcohol addiction (Heard I999a). These argwnents
are premised on Grossman's (1997) assertion that alcohol is a "gateway" to
drug use which "establish(es) the condition for illegal drug use" (I) and that
limiting access to alcohol will prevent their use. However, recent research
suggests that drug and alcohol addiction is at least partially genetically
predisposed (Sutka 2000).
Multiple critiques may be applied to his methodology and corrections,
suggesting the need for a more rigorous analysis. First, Grossman's distinction